Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SURGICAL DESIGN CORPORATION, appellant, v. Jamir CORREA, respondent, et al., defendant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion of corporate property and funds, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 10, 2005, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action against the defendant Jamir Correa.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted where the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit and will not prejudice or surprise the opposing party (see CPLR 3025[b]; Bolanowski v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 21 A.D.3d 340, 341, 800 N.Y.S.2d 560; Crespo v. Pucciarelli, 21 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 803 N.Y.S.2d 586). The determination whether to grant such leave is within the court's discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see Voyticky v. Duffy, 19 A.D.3d 685, 798 N.Y.S.2d 494, lv. dismissed in part, denied in part 6 N.Y.3d 800, 812 N.Y.S.2d 33, 845 N.E.2d 465; Sewkarran v. DeBellis, 11 A.D.3d 445, 782 N.Y.S.2d 758; Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Powell, 289 A.D.2d 564, 565, 735 N.Y.S.2d 208).
In the case at bar, assuming that the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, the plaintiff's extended delay in moving for leave to serve an amended complaint resulted in prejudice to the defendant Jamir Correa (see Voyticky v. Duffy, supra; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 15 A.D.3d 523, 525, 790 N.Y.S.2d 220). Moreover, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint (see Krioutchkova v. Gaad Realty Corp., 28 A.D.3d 427, 814 N.Y.S.2d 171; Leonardi v. City of New York, 294 A.D.2d 408, 741 N.Y.S.2d 912; Auwarter v. Malverne Union Free School Dist., 274 A.D.2d 528, 715 N.Y.S.2d 852).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 25, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)